Comment on FR Doc # E8-07068

1. The US and other ICCAT members are determined to stop illegal fishing by IUU’s (Illegal, Undocumented, Unregistered vessels). 2. While vessels are sometimes arrested or seized (very costly process), the governments of the treaty nations have decided that the best way to stop them is deny them access to markets. The method being used is to issue “passports’ in the form of SSD’s (swordfish statistical documents)each with a unique ID number. Through a combination of US Customs and NMFS enforcement efforts, the idea is to allow shippers (exporting companies) with correct documents access to US markets while denying access to shippers who lack these documents. By requiring the shipper or exporter to identify the vessel that landed the fish the governments of both importing and exporting counties can be sure that the fish have been caught legally. The navies and coast guards of ICAAT and other treaty nations already have a database on illegal vessels (a “black list”). 3. If companies like us, here and abroad, comply with the reporting required of us, it will ultimately create a “White List” of legal vessels (and nations). While it may negatively impact companies that rely heavily on imports (especially if they turn out to be from IUU’s) it will strengthen the position of US vessels. It will also play an even more valuable role in protecting these valuable highly migratory species from over-exploitation by illegal fishing. 4. While we strongly agree with the intent of this program, we have a number of issues with its implementation. This falls into three basic categories: Compliance, reporting, and enforcement. In the case of compliance: a. All HMS dealers must comply or the program will have little or no effect. It will also negatively impact those who do comply. b. It is obvious that the biggest players (like us and XXXXX) will be “asked” first to comply, as we are the biggest targets on the NMFS radar screen. NMFS enforcement is aware of our concerns about a “level playing field” and welcomes input from us in identifying HMS/swordfish importers who may not be complying, whether knowingly or unknowingly. I for one have no problem with this. i. Specific examples were raised of foreign companies that import fish into “transfer houses” then distribute them to multiple consignees throughout the country. Who in that case is responsible for reporting? Two different scenarios exist: 1. With one exception, exporters cannot clear fish into the US themselves. Either the consignee must clear the fish (like us or XXXXX) or they must us a “resident agent”, i.e. a US citizen or company (an XXXX or a XXXX XXXXXXX). In these cases the reporting obligation falls on them. 2. The exception is Canadian shippers, who through free trade exemptions can clear the fish themselves. In that case it is the obligation of each consignee to do the reporting (example XXXX shipping BST, XXXX, and XXXX, obligation is on each of these companies). This is a very important point that NMFS needs to be aware of as I doubt this is being done by all the companies. 3. A third example comes up when a Canadian company like XXX XXXXXXs clears Canadian fish into a transfer house like XXXX who then distributes them not to 4 or 5 consignees, but to 20 or 30. I don’t think NMFS was totally clear on whether the obligation fell on XXXX (who would not necessarily have access to pricing) or the multiple consignees. All three of these scenarios speak directly to the third bullet item on the NMFS proposal Require that U.S. resident agent…obtain HMS ITP (International Trade Permit), although I believe existing regs already require this. 5. Reporting issues, Bi-Weekly: a. The Bi-weekly reports were modeled on the pretty successful Bluefin program. What neither ICCAT nor NMFS may have taken into consideration is that what worked in a fishery that involved hundreds of individual fish, might not work so well in a fishery that involved tens of thousands of individual fish. b. We are fortunate in that we already track most of this data. Through a merger of our business software and other report writing software we have been able to pull all the data together. This ability is a result of substantial investments of money in the software and the programming. Companies lacking this capability will have a difficult time, but this is what we mean by insisting on a level playing field. c. We need NMFS staff to show flexibility in the format that we are required to use. As long as it substantially matches that of the form provided by NMFS (basically a spreadsheet with specific fields in a specific order) it should be acceptable. Some NMFS staffers have stated that it must be the “..exact form.” This constrains our ability to upload data from our database. d. The latest compliance notice from Mark Murray-Brown (January 10, 2008) specifies that the SSD “must include the U.S. Customs entry number at the top…”. I think this is an unfair request as it can only be done manually, not programmatically; and in any case the two are tied together on the bi-weekly report. As this requirement was never part of any hearings I’m not sure it can be added to the reporter’s burden. Voluntarily perhaps, which we will do. 6. Reporting Issues, SSD: a. The timing of swordfish SSD’s (from countries other than Canada) have so far fallen into two categories: concurrent with the shipment by fax only Brazil, Uruguay; and one to three days after the shipment has reached the consignee (South Africa). We believe this is a function more of the national government than of the shipper/exporter. Whether that in turn relates to the remoteness of the ports or the corruption intransigence of local officials we have no way of knowing. We have conveyed to all our shippers of the need to get the documents at the time of shipping. b. Original documents: as far as we have been able to ascertain neither us nor any dealer/importer has ever seen “original” SSD’s. Enforced compliance on this point at this time will bring this trade to a complete standstill. NMFS seems to be aware of the difficulty in both the shipper getting the docs in a timely fashion (see above) and the freight chain maintaining possession of the documents throughout. These are separate if related issues. I think in a time of mostly paperless clearances this requirement may be unreasonable, and that there are equally effective ways to prevent and detect improper or illegal documents. c. The formats of the SSD’s seems to vary from one country to the next. According to NMFS staff this is because ICCAT left the format and syntax of the form up to the member nations. While this may be OK, there is no way for us to know whether a document is legitimate or not if we don’t even know the numbering scheme of the SSD from each country. Indeed I have seen the formats from both Brazil and S. Africa vary substantially and inconsistently just over the past six months. For us to play a role in ensuring compliant and legal shipments we need to know the formats from all ICCAT nations immediately.